| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 12 post(s) |
Yaay
Game-Over
   |
Posted - 2009.10.06 23:24:00 -
[541]
Edited by: Yaay on 06/10/2009 23:24:11
 Originally by: Pringlescan
After the bonus and penalty the titans would have 1/10th of the tracking they used to have which is overkill, either reduce the tracking penalty you just gave them or give them some of the other bonuses associated with the siege mods such as bonuses to tanking.
Now what is unacceptable is the nerf this is giving to dreadnaughts. You already are replacing their role as capital damage dealers with the new changes to motherships AND titans, giving them increased risk since now there are mroe ways to do damage to them, and now they can't even shoot people out of siege?
Since this change essentially transforms titans from both anti-capital/sub caps to just anti-capitals I would recommend changing the dread bonuses around so they can shoot sub-caps well or reducing the titan tracking penalty to 50% of current nerf values.
Let me repeat the one thing dreads need is to be buffed not nerfed again. They are no longer the best capital damage dealer, they are no longer the best tankers, and there is no situation anymore where a dread performs better then any other ship.
It's amazing that everyone on here said 50-70% and in typical CCP fashion, they go way overboard. Why do these idiots not know how to try small before going big. I mean **** sake, how long does it take to change 1 little thing like tracking? They made constant changes and tweaks to faction ships when they first went live on sisi. But rather than start small with titan tracking, they murder it before anyone's even had a chance to try out a smaller change that everyone agreed was appropirate on here.
CCP really are the worst when it comes to customer relations. I mean WTF is the reason we've spent 18 pages of a thread trying to help you guys if you're totally def to our help. I mean short of the OMFG screams about the blatantly obvious stuff like gun tracking that it took half the players on the forum 5 minutes to recognize, have you really listened to any of the general efforts of this thread? I'm almost more impressed that between your own team, you couldn't realize that tracking was a problem from the word go. And if you did, why don't you try Covering your own ass by making it clear what the possible pitfalls of your ideas might be. If you guys honestly don't see the risk involved with any idea you throw out there, whether big or small, then you really need to get more help.
It's testing, make a post, Quote:
here are the changes we're trying out, here's what we think makes it great, here are the things we think might be problematic, test it out and help us see the flaws in this idea.
That's what testing is for. Point out the problem areas, make us test them out and let us show you just how bad it is. If you just act clueless or arrogant about the flaws that any plan might have, then you get the emoness from us saying how dumb and blind you really must be.
I mean **** sake, even god had to think to himself "well god, this man has a ****, but where the hell is he supposed to put it" before he came up with a woman.
I'd sure hate to think Adam had to spell it out for him. |
karttoon
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.10.06 23:41:00 -
[542]
Holy hell I'm agreeing with Yaay.
Except for the whole woman thing. We all know that's why we have a butt hole.
|
Yaay
Game-Over
|
Posted - 2009.10.06 23:42:00 -
[543]
Edited by: Yaay on 06/10/2009 23:43:59
What do those 2 stats mean?
The devs:
Well with your changes, the rail titan is going to struggle at any range to even hit a bs. Inside of 150km, it's probably going to be impossible. There is no point to the guns.
The players:
A pulse avatar with much higher tracking, shorter range but with the forum consensus for solution, struggles to track smaller ship, struggles to track bs inside of 15km, and can't hit at sniping ranges beyond 90km.
A rail platform with our solution tracks bs starting at about 50km. Meaning you have 50km of space inside of those guns to avoid them well.
zomg, player consensus, balanced, dev consensus I'm  Stupid.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
karttoon
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 00:29:00 -
[544]
Oh man a lot of people are complaining that their Battleship was killed by a Titan in an arena. I remember back when I was CEO of the Mercenary Coallition, I had problems shooting Battleships when I was in seige. Oooooo oooo I got it! How about we apply the siege tracking penelty to capital guns fix the problem. Oh man I'm a genius! *pow* this ball is OUT OF THE PARK!
|
Pringlescan
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 05:29:00 -
[545]
Originally by: CCP Abathur
I'm going to quote myself because many seem to be ignoring this bit:
Quote:
This is our 'first pass' on balancing with the new changes and we are already looking at a much larger revamp of capital weapons post-Dominion. Continued feedback is welcome and we still have plenty of time to tweak everything between now and December.
Okay lets try to put this simply. There is no more need to shoot structures with capitals after dominion because of the new system. Because of that capitals will only be used for fighting other people in actual ships not preplaced structures. If you make it so that capital fleets can only shoot other capitals,people will just use all sub-cap fleets and ignore any capitals deployed against them since they can't hurt the sub-caps. If you make it so that capital fleets can be used against sub-cap fleets then people will use them for that, providing the initial reason to risk them out in the open and expose them to a counter attack resulting in a huge fun battle, which currently is provided by dreads sieging on poses but that is of course going away.
The reason everyone is reacting so vehemently against that announcement is because the change is so completely terrible of an idea it demonstrates a lack of understanding of the fundamentals of 0.0 warfare and fleet fights by the people who are supposed to be balancing it and that worries us all a great deal.
In order to fix this, arrange it so that titans can shoot battleships farther then around 20km from them effectively, yet not be able to shoot heavy dictors and dictors whom are orbiting them. That way people will be willing to deploy capitals in more situations leading to more fights.
In fact now that I think about I bet this whole thing is a simple error in multiplication, and that you thought by adding a 37.5% tracking bonus with titan 5, then reducing the base tracking speed by 92.5% that you would have titans ending up with around 40% of their current tracking speed which would certainly be acceptable. However as anyone past second grade could tell you, 100 x (100-92.5) x 1.375= 10.31% of the original value.
So either you guys have a complete lack of understanding of 0.0 warfare, or you don't know how to multiply.
|
Mahke
Aeon Of Strife
Dominatus Atrum Mortis
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 05:59:00 -
[546]
Edited by: Mahke on 07/10/2009 05:59:54
Originally by: Pringlescan
The reason everyone is reacting so vehemently against that announcement...us....
Actually, all the "vehemence" has been along the lines of "what about the poor dreads" "lol missiles" or what appears to be a massive goon posting spree for whatever reasons of your own interests are at stake (okay, yaay's been the one exception to those three).
If you're reading CCP, wait for people to test and form an opinion, rather than a flood of goon posts trying to create the illusion of some kind of "vehement" negative reaction (can't blame you guys for trying though, considering how many titans you have)
|
Jarnis McPieksu
Insidious Existence
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 08:15:00 -
[547]
Originally by: Mahke
Edited by: Mahke on 07/10/2009 05:59:54
Originally by: Pringlescan
The reason everyone is reacting so vehemently against that announcement...us....
Actually, all the "vehemence" has been along the lines of "what about the poor dreads" "lol missiles" or what appears to be a massive goon posting spree for whatever reasons of your own interests are at stake (okay, yaay's been the one exception to those three).
If you're reading CCP, wait for people to test and form an opinion, rather than a flood of goon posts trying to create the illusion of some kind of "vehement" negative reaction (can't blame you guys for trying though, considering how many titans you have)
They may be Goon posts, but they mostly speak the truth.
0.0 alliances generally do not deploy caps and supercaps just to compensate for biological defects - it is all about using available tools and resources for a purpose. At the moment Dreads supported by Carriers and fielded in big numbers can only be countered with Dreads - a BS fleet may pick a fight and may be able to delay the Dreads, possibly downing a ship or two, but they really cannot prevent a combined Dread-Carrier fleet from holding the field unless massively outnumbering them - out-of-siege Dreads and Carrier fighters/drones will just outgun them. This leads to capital ship battles, which is a Good Thing.
The changes CCP posted in this thread ("first pass") combined with others Dominion changes together remove the purpose to use caps - which in turn makes the new improved anti-cap supercaps just as irrelevant. A massive blob of Battleships has always been the swiss army knife of 0.0 warfare and the hand grenade that existed in response was the "triple-DD Titan party time" maneuver. If you simultaneously remove the threat of a fleet wipeout and ensure that Dreads can do roughly nothing to anything that isn't a fixed installation, another sieged Dread or a Titan/Supercarrier, you ensure that Battleships have to face only more Battleships and capitals would be mostly loot pinatas for subcap fleets, doing nothing useful on the field while subcaps duke it out.
This would leave the biggest ships of EVE without a purpose, other than the minor role of being taken out of mothballs every few weeks when there is a big fixed installation to shoot and the system is already locked down so a hostile BS blob won't be a factor - and even then, a friendly blob of Battleships would probably do the same job just as well.
Only way to somehow justify the changes would be a change that requires capital ship use to kill the new sov claiming thingys and to reinforce stations. Since this would put a massive barrier of entry for new alliances to 0.0 ("Must have Dread fleet to play"), I have hard time believing this is the plan.
So, my question to CCP: "What is the plan and what is the intended role for Dreadnoughts in Dominion? What design goal is served by these preliminary changes?"
And yes, I would say that anyone who has not piloted a cap/supercap in large 0.0 fleet battles is not qualified to comment on this issue. That means YOU, a station camping solo Moros lowlife who got my out-of-siege drones nerfed. 
|
Jackie Fisher
Syrkos Technologies
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 09:10:00 -
[548]
Originally by: CCP Abathur
Updates:
If all goes well then we will be having our Supercapital Madness test on SiSi this Friday. The following changes will be getting pushed to SiSi to ensure we get the best data possible.
Moros - Drone bonus only applicable in siege mode. (May get a smaller bonus out of siege.)
Siege Module - The tracking penalty on the Siege Module has been removed.
XL Turrets - The tracking penalty previously applied by the Siege module has been applied to XL turrets as their base stats.
Titan Bonuses - Titans have received the following new bonuses:
- Avatar: 7.5% bonus to Capital Energy Turret tracking per level
- Erebus: 7.5% bonus to Capital Hybrid Turret tracking per level
- Ragnarok: 7.5% bonus to Capital Projectile Turret tracking per level
- Leviathan: 7.5% bonus to Citadel Missile velocity per level
This is our 'first pass' on balancing with the new changes and we are already looking at a much larger revamp of capital weapons post-Dominion. Continued feedback is welcome and we still have plenty of time to tweak everything between now and December. 
WouldnĘt it be simpler to give Titans a negative role bonus to XL weapons tracking in the same way destroyers get one to rate of fire?
|
Twelve Jackals
Rionnag Alba
Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 11:03:00 -
[549]
Originally by: YaayBut for that tradeoff, Shield boosting capitals get a massive boost to active tanks. It's not hard to get a Shield boosting titan to easily double, if not triple the active tank of a armor repairing titan.[/quote
That advantage is totally destroyed by the new HP figures.
|
Blazde
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 13:55:00 -
[550]
Originally by: CCP Abathur
I'm going to quote myself because many seem to be ignoring this bit:
Quote:
This is our 'first pass' on balancing with the new changes and we are already looking at a much larger revamp of capital weapons post-Dominion. Continued feedback is welcome and we still have plenty of time to tweak everything between now and December.
Instead of an apparent grab bag of interesting yet disconnected changes and the ever-present get out clause of "stats still needing balancing / more changes are planned" to counter any negative feedback can we instead get a description of the overarching vision you're chasing? How do you see each of the capital classes performing post-Dominion? What are their roles, and capabilities, and what scenarios are they going to be fighting in, considering the sov-changes? I think it'd be much better if we could offer feedback on the big picture instead of trying to comment on individual changes (which might be severely influenced by other yet-to-come changes) without any explanation of the reasoning behind them.
Nerfing oos dread tracking to fix titan tracking (if that is the reason) which is still in development itself seems on the face of it just as badly thought out as when some dev 'fixed probing' by blowing up capital sig-radiuses by as much as ten times. If it is well thought out then it'd be really helpful to see the 'working'.
And remember Sisi tests will be quite limited because they won't tell you a thing about the psychology of players actually deploying these ships on TQ when they cost real ISK and have real strategic objectives. On Sisi we fly exotic inpractical fits, in generally chaotic and unrealistic battles, blow up all our expensive ships and go home with a smile on our faces cos of the pretty explosions that don't matter. TQ combat is way different, particularly for such a complex subject as cap warfare. I'm certainly not saying Sisi testing is worthless but I get the feeling so far that you're relying on it too much. Basic tracking issues can be sorted with a calculator once you know what you want titan turrets to be capable of, and then balanced with small tweaks instead of throwing curve balls like this.
_
|
Yaay
Game-Over
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 15:51:00 -
[551]
Originally by: Blazde
The problem come down to CCP, and really even a lot of players not understanding tracking mechanics. Everyone is under the impression that their some magical balance between sig radius and speed, and that everyone is happy. Hell, knowing just how most people think, I'm guessing half of them don't even understand what rad/s means.
And ya know what, that's fine. Not everyone is great at math.
But don't come here and throw out arbitrary figures just because some model somewhere told you that it will probably work. Paper and reality are 2 different things. Meteorologist look at dozens of different models and then have to use previous experience and knowledge to actually predict what it all means. They don't just take what the first computer tells them and claim it'll work.
Grab a chair, get a 30 minute seminar, and make sure all your employees are up to snuff on these sorts of things. These basic fundamentals of the game affect everything else so drastically, that it's almost a shame that you guys don't seem to understand the actual mechanics of them. Learn the frick mechanics, then use your models and maybe even create some newer, more basic models, and you'll understand more why these numbers are terribly bad.
I used to tell the bobbits all the time, trying to boost tracking using small % on mods is silly. When you're talking 1/1000th of a radian, 50% boost isn't doing all that much and you have to waste 3 slots to get there. Removing a 75% debuff from t2 ammo actually has so much more impact on ammo, that it makes no sense to ever use tracking mods for tracking purposes. When you mix that with an understanding of range mechanics, it makes things even more arbitrary.
Look at a moros rail gun. .00045 tracking fit in siege w/o any gear buffs. That means for every 10km of distance, you're getting 4.5 m/s of tracking speed. You could boost that number 200% and you would still only be getting 13.5 m/s tracking per 10km. That means with that huge buff, you still need to get out to about 100km before hitting a BS becomes practical. And that's with a 200% buff to tracking. So who's going to waste time on a 15% tracking bonus from gear? I mean at that stat, you give battleships 100km of safe zone and 50km of play room. Right now, BS have a huge window against rail moros because it's not getting 200% more tracking. Do people die, hell yes, because they don't have a clue what this means.
I get a kick out of dropping dreads on RR bs gangs that are 30km away. All they have to do is move about 15-20m/s and they break dread tracking at that range if the dreads are sniper fit. Yet what do they do, they huddle up and drop to 0 speed. That's not an effective dread, that's an incompetent FC or players. Doesn't mean dreads are great BS killers.
If you guys want to keep playing the magical sig radius card, here's something ironic:
Why do turret dreads hit 25sig radius mods on a tower so easily and hard? B/C they fall in tracking limits. Sig has 0 affect. It really doesn't have a huge impact on hits until you start approaching the limits of tracking. Again, why do you think Titans were killing cruisers on SISI. It sure as hell wasn't their inflated sig radius of a whopping 150-200 vs those 1000 sig radius guns.
Learn the practical nature of the mechanics, maybe you'll understand how these things happen more. Quit relying on some ass backwards model that doesn't understand anything more than the numbers you give it.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Elaron
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 17:03:00 -
[552]
Originally by: Jarnis McPieksu
So, my question to CCP: "What is the plan and what is the intended role for Dreadnoughts in Dominion? What design goal is served by these preliminary changes?"
CCP very rarely answers that kind of question, as it makes it too easy for the players to demonstrate a fatal flaw in the underlying assumptions.
|
Blazde
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 17:33:00 -
[553]
Originally by: Yaay
The problem come down to CCP, ... not understanding tracking mechanics.
Well I hope this is not the case, but I do get nostalgic for the days of TomB (and others) posting complex graphs of this and that and strange formula with inverse trig terms that addressed the problem so perfectly you needed to pinch yourself. And 'balancing' them meant changing a factor of 2.0 to 2.1 or something
There's two reasons I love EVE, the Unique-Selling-Point-Sandbox blah blah, and the complex combat simulation which, despite what people say, is incredibly well balanced to the point that dozens of ship types are highly useable with many different indispensable roles (and it doesn't really get enough credit for what it is). But today's EVE designers don't need to invent new genius combat engine fundamentals (though it would be cool), the foundations are strong. All they need is to understand what's there well enough to use it as a tool to (re)tune ship classes according to their intended role. Capitals have pretty much missed out on that tuning and so far I have a depressing feeling about the future based on what's proposed. It seems like this is the one big chance to fix this stuff (or at least formulate a medium-term plan for fixing it) so I'd dearly love to see it done well.
_
|
Professor Dumbledore
Amarr
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 17:36:00 -
[554]
I have considerable doubts you will bother reading this but just in case.
Well there are only 4 things they have to do to balance captial weapons right now.
step 1. Make All Captial Weapon Hit Sizes 1000m
step 2. Keep the Tranquility Tracking amounts
step 3. Change the Siege tracking penalty to 70% from 90%
step 4. Change all Pos mod sizes where "Large" mods ( the ones that are currently 400m ) are 1000m medium are 750m and small are 500m.
i doubt we will see a good change like this tho.
|
|
CCP Abathur
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 19:07:00 -
[555]
Edited by: CCP Abathur on 07/10/2009 19:08:28
Update 2
The changes posted last night (which dated from about a week ago) got a good scrubbing today and I've adjusted a few things that should be in the static update before our test event on Friday.
The current stats on SiSi will stay as they are now with one change: There will be a 50% tracking penalty applied to all turrets on Titans. This should allow Titans to still do excellent damage against capital ships and a fairly good job of engaging Battleships while lowering their overall effectiveness against smaller classes.
To clarify, nothing that was posted here ever made it to SiSi or will be going there. Further changes to capital weapons and ships based upon feedback from the forums, the CSM and FanFest round tables are still under review.
Also, both the Amarr and Gallente super weapon graphics should be on SiSi by Friday night. There should be an official announcement about the event soon.
|
|
Deva Blackfire
Viziam
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 19:41:00 -
[556]
TBH, previous points in this thread still stand. Can you tell EXACTLY what roles should those ships have:
dreads
carriers
motherships
titans
Coz it seems that even you dont really know it.
|
Vile rat
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 20:23:00 -
[557]
Titans and Motherships are dumb and have always been dumb. Stop trying to figure out uses for a terrible game implementation that should have never been and just get rid of them completely. You're going to fall into a trap regardless that if you have enough of them they'll end up being invincible due to the way game mechanics work out.
They were supposed to be alliance level strategic assets and instead you appear to be falling back on making them solo own the hell out of everything weapons again.
Just stop it already.
|
Yaay
Game-Over
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 21:08:00 -
[558]
Originally by: CCP Abathur
Edited by: CCP Abathur on 07/10/2009 19:08:28
Update 2
The changes posted last night (which dated from about a week ago) got a good scrubbing today and I've adjusted a few things that should be in the static update before our test event on Friday.
The current stats on SiSi will stay as they are now with one change: There will be a 50% tracking penalty applied to all turrets on Titans. This should allow Titans to still do excellent damage against capital ships and a fairly good job of engaging Battleships while lowering their overall effectiveness against smaller classes.
To clarify, nothing that was posted here ever made it to SiSi or will be going there. Further changes to capital weapons and ships based upon feedback from the forums, the CSM and FanFest round tables are still under review.
Also, both the Amarr and Gallente super weapon graphics should be on SiSi by Friday night. There should be an official announcement about the event soon.
I chalk this up as 1 small victory for crash course tracking guide.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Deva Blackfire
Viziam
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 21:48:00 -
[559]
Originally by: Yaay
Originally by: CCP Abathur
Edited by: CCP Abathur on 07/10/2009 19:08:28
Update 2
The changes posted last night (which dated from about a week ago) got a good scrubbing today and I've adjusted a few things that should be in the static update before our test event on Friday.
The current stats on SiSi will stay as they are now with one change: There will be a 50% tracking penalty applied to all turrets on Titans. This should allow Titans to still do excellent damage against capital ships and a fairly good job of engaging Battleships while lowering their overall effectiveness against smaller classes.
To clarify, nothing that was posted here ever made it to SiSi or will be going there. Further changes to capital weapons and ships based upon feedback from the forums, the CSM and FanFest round tables are still under review.
Also, both the Amarr and Gallente super weapon graphics should be on SiSi by Friday night. There should be an official announcement about the event soon.
I chalk this up as 1 small victory for crash course tracking guide.
CAPS-Online 1:0 EVE-Online
|
Succubine
Caldari
Succubine Dynasty Technologies
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 21:52:00 -
[560]
Originally by: Deva Blackfire
TBH, previous points in this thread still stand. Can you tell EXACTLY what roles should those ships have:
dreads
carriers
motherships
titans
Coz it seems that even you dont really know it.
Not much will change except for the titan role of fun killing with a button press or its mere presence.
Dreadnought - Supercapital and capital ship killers, fast POS cleanup (mining/staging POS) and, with very large numbers, intimidating everything.
Carrier - Remote repair slaves for Supercapitals and Capitals and offensive abilities to somewhat effectively engage all ship sizes. Also, moving ships and some cargo.
Supercarrier - Same role as carrier, but more DPS.
Titan - Super-Dreadnought with most of the strengths and none of the handicaps that make Dreadnoughts incredibly boring to pilot. Effective against battleship size and up. Death Ray included.
My only concern is that titans in numbers will be too strong against battleships and heavy interdictors.
|
Deva Blackfire
Viziam
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 22:00:00 -
[561]
Originally by: Succubine
Not much will change except for the titan role of fun killing with a button press or its mere presence.
I would prefer to hear CCP version/vision, not how players see it. Coz looking at this thread you are already wrong in 1st point, namely:
Quote:
Dreadnought - Supercapital and capital ship killers, fast POS cleanup (mining/staging POS) and, with very large numbers, intimidating everything.
Quoting razor guy:
Quote:
Like in the recent Omam fight - none of the dreads sieged - they acted like massive, jump-capable battleships with the mother-of-all tanks. Why siege if the hostiles come only with subcaps and there is no POS to shoot?
And thats the issue i have with caps. They dont have defined roles and end up being multi-role ships. As per quote above. The tracking hit idea actually would change them into battering rams against structures and caps, but as it was scratched then dreads are still "uber battleships".
So again: id like to hear CCPs version. How THEY see their own game. Unless they dont have any vision (which this topic again confirms).
|
Mangtoos
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 22:18:00 -
[562]
Originally by: Deva Blackfire
Originally by: Succubine
Not much will change except for the titan role of fun killing with a button press or its mere presence.
I would prefer to hear CCP version/vision, not how players see it. Coz looking at this thread you are already wrong in 1st point, namely:
Quote:
Dreadnought - Supercapital and capital ship killers, fast POS cleanup (mining/staging POS) and, with very large numbers, intimidating everything.
Quoting razor guy:
Quote:
Like in the recent Omam fight - none of the dreads sieged - they acted like massive, jump-capable battleships with the mother-of-all tanks. Why siege if the hostiles come only with subcaps and there is no POS to shoot?
And thats the issue i have with caps. They dont have defined roles and end up being multi-role ships. As per quote above. The tracking hit idea actually would change them into battering rams against structures and caps, but as it was scratched then dreads are still "uber battleships".
So again: id like to hear CCPs version. How THEY see their own game. Unless they dont have any vision (which this topic again confirms).
Well specifically defined and limited roles wouldn't be very sandboxy, now would it? What is important is that it has A role.
|
Deva Blackfire
Viziam
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 22:23:00 -
[563]
Originally by: Mangtoos
Well specifically defined and limited roles wouldn't be very sandboxy, now would it? What is important is that it has A role.
There is a difference between being jack of all trades and master of none and being master of all trades. In case of dreads they again come into "bigger=better" as i defined it few pages ago.
When one ship type totally obsoletes another it is bad for "sandbox". It doesnt promote diversity but promotes using one ship type. Less diversity = not very sandboxy, am i right?
|
Yaay
Game-Over
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 22:53:00 -
[564]
Originally by: Deva Blackfire
Originally by: Mangtoos
Well specifically defined and limited roles wouldn't be very sandboxy, now would it? What is important is that it has A role.
There is a difference between being jack of all trades and master of none and being master of all trades. In case of dreads they again come into "bigger=better" as i defined it few pages ago.
When one ship type totally obsoletes another it is bad for "sandbox". It doesnt promote diversity but promotes using one ship type. Less diversity = not very sandboxy, am i right?
Dreads in no way shape or form replace battleships. If you're going to start whining about that, then maybe you do belong in viziam.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Deva Blackfire
Viziam
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 23:06:00 -
[565]
Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 07/10/2009 23:08:01
Originally by: Yaay
Dreads in no way shape or form replace battleships. If you're going to start whining about that, then maybe you do belong in viziam.
Lookit, great FC Yaay dissing someone.
Ofc they do replace battleships at some point. Get 20 carriers 50 dreads and 100 bs or get 20 carriers and 150 dreads. I will always go second way. So will NC go every time. Unsieged dreads are quite awesome tools. They do have lower total DPS than battleships but their tracking is high enough to hit outside of 30km. Inside of 30km anything will die to fighters anyway. And adding on top their EHP is huge enough to get locked 10 times by carriers before they die. Plus carrier RR is considerable too. So yes - when it comes to "endgame" gangs dreads replace battleships.
But how would you know. I doubt that you used 100+ dread gangs as mobile battleships. On the other hand i was in those gangs as dread pilot and i can tell you - its quite fun and its invulnerable to anything except for larger capital gang. Only warping around is pain, there is always some dumb pilot who doesnt know how to align.
|
Yaay
Game-Over
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 23:18:00 -
[566]
Edited by: Yaay on 07/10/2009 23:25:41
Originally by: Deva Blackfire
Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 07/10/2009 23:08:01
Originally by: Yaay
Dreads in no way shape or form replace battleships. If you're going to start whining about that, then maybe you do belong in viziam.
Lookit, great FC Yaay dissing someone.
Ofc they do replace battleships at some point. Get 20 carriers 50 dreads and 100 bs or get 20 carriers and 150 dreads. I will always go second way. So will NC go every time. Unsieged dreads are quite awesome tools. They do have lower total DPS than battleships but their tracking is high enough to hit outside of 30km. Inside of 30km anything will die to fighters anyway. And adding on top their EHP is huge enough to get locked 10 times by carriers before they die. Plus carrier RR is considerable too. So yes - when it comes to "endgame" gangs dreads replace battleships.
But how would you know. I doubt that you used 100+ dread gangs as mobile battleships. On the other hand i was in those gangs as dread pilot and i can tell you - its quite fun and its invulnerable to anything except for larger capital gang. Only warping around is pain, there is always some dumb pilot who doesnt know how to align.
Been working out really well for the NC lately against PL RRBS groups.
Dreads are slow, clumsy, and stupid ships. There's always a few trailing behind and a high dps, relatively small group can take advantage of them every time.
If you FC is telling you to go on grid against them when they're out of siege and your bs group can't figure out how to warp out in the 10s they have before a pack of dreads even locks them, then well, blame your own people. In siege, they're virtually defenseless against a well organized BS group.
And Deva, don't argue against someone with more FC experience in a day than you've ever had, it's just foolish.
Originally by: Deva Blackfire
But how would you know. I doubt that you used 100+ dread gangs as mobile battleships. On the other hand i was in those gangs as dread pilot and i can tell you ...
Flying in a gang and actually leading them, totally different experiences. Quit being an elitist idiot and back up your statement with fact about leading a gang, not what you did by yourself following orders from someone else.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Deva Blackfire
Viziam
|
Posted - 2009.10.07 23:38:00 -
[567]
Originally by: Yaay
Been working out really well for the NC lately against PL RRBS groups.
Losing 40 carriers with very light support to 200(?) battleships with HAC support isnt really anything special to boast about. And proves my point again. If those 200 pilots were in dreads there wouldnt be "they were spidertanking us" episode.
On the other hand check Omam fight again. Place where forces are more-less the same, one has capitals other battleships. There is quite a huge difference between to fairly equal forces one being cap heavy other not and cap fleet being outnumbered 3:1 by battleships.
You can also browse tri KB for similiar examples (there were 2-3 odd ones, not much really) where 100 dreads + 50 carriers took on 200 battleships and held ground no problem (only losses were 2 dreads straggled in warp out - we didnt return to save them).
Quote:
In siege, they're virtually defenseless against a well organized BS group.
have i ever said a word about fighting in siege? Its just a nice add-on when you are getting hotdropped.
Quote:
Flying in a gang and actually leading them, totally different experiences. Quit being an elitist idiot and back up your statement with fact about leading a gang, not what you did by yourself following orders from someone else.
Said eliteist idiot. Next time try to counter arguments not attack the person. It usually shows that argument is spot on and you cant really do much about it.
|
Yaay
Game-Over
|
Posted - 2009.10.08 00:02:00 -
[568]
Edited by: Yaay on 08/10/2009 00:03:00
Originally by: Deva Blackfire
You just referenced 1 incident in the north. What about the other 5 or 6 in the past 2 weeks?
You are an elitist idiot, you're ex tri... which I believe are self proclaimed elitist idiots.
Most FC's will argue against you. Carrier swarms are far far far more problematic than dreads. Dread swarms are nothing of concern to most BS groups. It's the same or less DPS than a BS, horrid lock times, and only marginally good tracking. Not to mention that once they're dedicated on grid, you better have a good exit strategy or you're about to lose lost of money from the dreads. Again, if your FC is ******ed enough to go into a swarm of capitals out of siege without a clue how to take them down, then blame him. There are far better ways to hit them in their weak spots.
DD changes
Docking PVP games |
Deva Blackfire
Viziam
|
Posted - 2009.10.08 00:17:00 -
[569]
Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 08/10/2009 00:24:18
Originally by: Yaay
Edited by: Yaay on 08/10/2009 00:03:00
Originally by: Deva Blackfire
You just referenced 1 incident in the north. What about the other 5 or 6 in the past 2 weeks?
Browsing NC killboard i found dread losses when they got dropped (by larger amount of dreads), carrier losses when they got outnumbered heavily (the 40 carriers vs 200 battleships). Thats it. Not really much to cover your theory of caps being beaten by same number of battleships.
Actually if you find the fight where one side had caps, other side equal number of battleships (or even battleships+caps) and the mixed/BS side won, please link it for me. At the moment i posted few fights that confirm my "theory" yet you are still to post even one that tells i am wrong.
Quote:
ego boosting blabber and stuff every dread pilot knows anyways
If they are that bad then i guess removing their tracking to siege mode level is not a big issue? Oh wait, outcry that happened after this news was because they ARE used out of siege :shock:
So again, lots of nice words but still not even close to what was and is happening on TQ. Also proof or stfu.
EDIT:
oh yea there was also one roir engagement. 15 (?) caps dead - coz thats all what got bubbled out of main group. As long as main group was still in place only dead caps were ones that crashed (viper's report from CAOD).
|
Stealthbug
|
Posted - 2009.10.08 00:22:00 -
[570]
This is entertaining.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 30 .. 32 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |